Our objectives were to assess the: (1) effectiveness of COPS in attaining program
goals, (2) controls over monitoring of grantees by COPS and OJP, and (3) effectiveness of
guidance to grantees. We conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards and included such tests of program records as were necessary. Our audits of COPS
grantees are funded out of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. For FY 1999, we
received $3.8 million from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, which represents 1/10th
of 1 percent of expenditures paid from the fund.

Our audit focused on hiring and redeployment grants awarded by COPS and OJP under the
community oriented policing program from inception through February 11, 1999. The
following table identifies the type of hiring and redeployment grants awarded, number of
officers funded, and dollar amounts awarded as of February 11, 1999.

OFFICERS AND DOLLARS FUNDED

Type Grant

Officers
Funded

Award
Amount

PHS

2,003

$148,421,993

PHASE I

2,570

$189,027,136

AHEAD

3,976

$282,944,668

FAST

6,049.5

$394,422,013

MORE

35,851.7

$966,924,476

UHP

41,874

$3,027,412,482

TOTALS

92,324.2

$5,009,152,768

Source: COPS

We conducted audit work at COPS and OJP. We also summarized the audit results of 149
COPS/OJP grantees that we audited from October 1996 through September 1998 (See Appendix
III). The grant reports summarized in this document were not selected randomly, and our
results may or may not be representative of the universe of grantees. Of the 149 grant
audits, 103 were referred to us by COPS or OJP. COPS' policy is to refer to us for audit
what it believes to be problematic grantees. The remaining 46 grantees were selected by us
based on a variety of factors including type of grantee, the size of the grant, the
grantee's geographic location, and potential problem grantees.

To assess the effectiveness of COPS in attaining the President's goal of putting
100,000 officers on America's streets, we:

reviewed policies, procedures, regulations, and laws pertaining to management of the
COPS program;

interviewed COPS and OJP managers and staff about their procedures for awarding grants,
and reporting progress towards the program goal;

analyzed automated data maintained by COPS and OJP on the status of grants awarded and
withdrawn, and the grant obligations and deobligations;23

analyzed the results of 149 audits of COPS/OJP grantees we had conducted from October
1996 through September 1998, to identify deficiencies that could impede COPS' progress
towards the goal; and

randomly selected 200 grants and surveyed the grantees to determine their plans for
retaining the funded positions after the grants expire.

To assess the controls over grantee monitoring by COPS and OJP, we:

reviewed the policies, procedures, and practices used by COPS and OJP to monitor the
programmatic and financial activities of grantees;

randomly selected 200 grants and reviewed COPS' and OJP's grant files and automated
records to determine if the grantees had submitted the required programmatic and financial
progress reports; and

reviewed a selected number of grantee site visit reports completed by COPS and OJP, and
evaluated whether COPS and OJP followed up on the deficiencies identified in the reports.

To assess the effectiveness of guidance to grantees, we:

reviewed the guidance contained in the Grant Owners Manuals;

reviewed the deficiencies identified in the 149 audits of COPS/OJP grantees that we
conducted from October 1996 through September 1998;

categorized the deficiencies as either serious, moderate, or minor; and

charted the deficiencies to illustrate where grantees had the most problems and needed
additional guidance.

Grants awarded but not accepted within the
designated acceptance period that need follow up to determine if the grants should be
rescinded and the funds awarded to other agencies.

$485,200,000

12

Terminated grants with "ACCEPTED"
status that need to be deobligated and the funds awarded to other agencies

$1,000,000

15

Terminated grants with "WITHDREW"
status that need to be deobligated and the funds awarded to other agencies

$14,100,000

16

Total

$500,300,000

23 While we relied on
automated data to achieve the audit objectives, we did not always separately test the
reliability of the data. However, when these data are viewed in context with other
available evidence, we believe the opinions, conclusions, and recommendations in this
report are valid.

24 FUNDS TO BETTER USE are
defined as unspent monies that could be more efficiently used in the future if management
acts on our findings.